Sorry to everyone for misusing the word "theory". However, it is still also a theory as in hypothesis since it can't be proven. A lot of things in this world are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!
Apologies, was someone else then. But if you didn't take science in high-school, how can you know much about science? I find no reason to think you're motivated to do your own studying on your own time on the subject, so where did you gain the knowledge of biological evolution you mentioned?
So the dating processes used by scientists are all incorrect?
It is in Leviticus Chapters 13-14. The context is if someone in a village has an ailment, it describes how the citizens should react and what the priest should do. In it, the priest is the one who decapitates 1 living dove and immediately after, sets a second dove free to fly away.
Fair enough you don't know much on evolution of bacteria. I mentioned it because it's one of the quickest and reliable ways to observe evolution happening in front of you. It can be done with fruit flies and such because their lifespan is brief, whereas for, say, a cow or a monkey, it'd take extremely long.
It is false, the theory does not say humans came from monkeys. That is a misunderstanding echoed from people who do not have a partial grasp on the concept of biological evolution pertaining to humans. Either the source(s) you read are complete bullshit or they're correct but you don't have a partial grasp on it, doesn't matter to me which is the case. Instead, it says humans came from a monkey-looking ancestor but humans and monkeys evolved separately. For example, one proposed taxonomy idea is that Euarchontoglires clade were common ancestors for various animals, ranging from rabbits to rats to humans. As this group evolved, it branched and eventually formed the family Hominidae. From this family, humans evolved parallel to monkeys, that is, they evolved from a common ancestor but not from each other. Later, this led to the genus Homo and you had Homo erectus, Homo neandrethalis and so forth.
It's not a detailed answer but here are 2 diagrams because pictures are worth a thousand words. First is from Wikipedia the second is from Nature (very large, well-respected scientific journal)
[/size][/font] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Hominidae.PNG
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...28475a_F2.html
If you want to go back further, you'll eventually discuss evolution of fish, reptiles and so forth. I'm not going to explain that because it's far too long and uses far too many terms, I'd be giving half a page of terms before starting any explanation. Evidence from this also involves molecular genetics, some of which I know although it involves discussion of many other animals, although you'd be better off finding someone else to discuss with for that as I only know of some of the molecular processes.
Yes there is a chance it is not correct, it's redundant to keep saying it. No explanations in science will be considered factual. Evolution is sometimes said to be a "fact" for the reason it has not encountered strong scientific opposition and there's more and more evidence being added to the books of evidence that already exists. I were to go to a science conference or guest lecture and say to the person "well that's good and all but ____ theory is just a theory, it's may be wrong", just about everyone in the room would immediately think something along the lines of "who the fuck is this moron?".
|
I did (and still do) take science in high school, I just wasn’t the one who said that.
Yes, a lot of the dating processes used by scientists are wrong.
If it says what the priest should do, it sounds like it was probably a ritual that involved God’s healing as well-not just the blood.
So if evolution isn’t that humans came from monkeys and only that our ancestors looked like monkeys…..how does that disprove Adam and Eve? The bible doesn’t say that humans looked the same then as they do now. Maybe Adam and Eve did look like monkeys. Who cares if humans looked differently back then? They were still humans. I don’t believe that theory in the chart that you posted at all, but I believe it’s possible that humans looked like monkeys before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan
Then he is within the realm of science. If he were truly outside the realm of science, then he couldn't make himself known to us even if he wanted to. In short, for something to really be "above science", it would have to be so unlike anything resembling reality as to be useless to discuss because we'd have no idea of what it is we're discussing. That is how absurd it is to call something "above science".
|
God can control science, so in that way I guess He isn't out of it. But He is out of it's controls is what I was saying. He can control it, but it can't control Him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan
Is there free will in heaven?
|
I'm not sure exactly. I mean, I know that nothing bad happens in Heaven......but I don't know if that's because we won't have the power to do anything bad, or because our souls will be so joyful that we can't even imagine wanting to.